Considering that balsa was virtually the only option for most of model airplane history, it's not surprising that many people (millions?) have learned to fly with balsa planes - probably a wide majority of current flyers. Kind of a silly statement, really. Can't see why one would regret learning to fly on any type of plane.

As a rational, thinking human it is my responsibility to plan ahead - to prepare myself to "handle it" - in anything I do. To reject advances in thought, knowledge, safety, methods, and/or materials will limit my ability to properly prepare or protect myself in most any area of my life. The worst possible mistake I can make at any time is to cop a "tradition" type attitude - as in "it's always been (or been done) this way - and new ways suck!" I limit my life, my safety, and my fun too much by doing so.

As a beginner, I know that learning to fly has a high “crash” probability – most likely after I’ve soloed and left the watchful hands of my competent instructor. Consequently, I'm preparing myself in the best ways possible so that a crash will not be difficult to handle. I've built a very tough, durable, and relatively easy to construct trainer to minimize any crash damage - and to eliminate or shorten any possible down time. I built the complete airframe for under $20.00 (and I have materials left over for additional fuses). If it's totaled it will have negligible financial impact. My free time is extremely limited so I picked a plane for a speedy build. I'd rather use the time learning to fly than spend it at the workbench.

Yup! I built a SPAD. A modified Debonair from [link=http://www.spadtothebone.com]SpadtotheBone[/link]

In the past, I've also built two balsa trainers. An ugly stick and another I can't remember the name of (it was the club recommended trainer choice at the time). There is absolutely no question which plane has the better chance of surviving and thriving in a newbies hands. All three are butt ugly. But the balsas are matchsticks - fragile things that will obviously shatter from modest impacts. My Spad trainer will take much more - and could easily survive and fly after Chris's "kick" test - most likely without any damage.

Learning to fly ... Hmmm! Probably gonna crash a time or two ... or at least have some hard landings. Hrmm! Let's see ... give me that flimsy, fragile, balsa trainer kit for $$ and 50 to 100 hours (or more?) build time. Wait, maybe I should have that flimsy, fragile, balsa trainer ARF for $$$ and 20 to 40 hours (or more) build time. I'm a masochist, you see! I like to cause myself grief...

Not nearly as silly as the last half of your post, really. My point was that I don't regret learning to build. I'm much less limited because I can build anything I want and I can build it better than any factory and 99% of people in this hobby. If you think you can build mostly SPADs or ARF's and then every once in a while build a balsa plane that will be as good as one that I build, then that's just delusional thinking. Additionally, I would say that I could build a SPAD that is nicer than most of them out there due to the many years I've devoted to learning nearly every building technique there is.

Neither can anyone else.

What advances? Who is rejecting anything? Is there a point to this that coincides with my statement that you quoted?

Maybe you just don't have the aptitude to fly r/c aircraft? I learned to fly when there were no flight sims and no buddy boxes with a silk and doped balsa trainer I built and didn't crash it. When I do crash, I can repair it because I kno how. Nothing masochistic about it, but if you're stuck in worst case scenarios, it's no wonder you want expendable airplanes.

I want to do the lawnmower one! That would be fun too.

My little wild thing as a spad would be a blast. Are there any plans for such a thing like that? They quit making the wild thing but man, it is so fun to fly!

Then why didn't you state that? The way you worded it had nothing to do with building - and implied that you didn't regret learning to fly on balsa. I agree with you that building can be fun and interesting. I've enjoyed learning to build with balsa and plastic.

Gee, you're a wonder in your own mind.

Why are you assuming I'm talking about you in the paragraph? Notice the operative word "I". Just because I quoted you in the beginning of my post doesn't necessarily mean the whole post is going to be about you.

Possible, but not probable.

Yeah, well we're not all marvels like you. Some of us light-weights have to try and make it easy on ourselves by taking advantage of them new-fangled flight sims and tougher airplanes - because we know sooner or later we'll probably biff it. We like being prepared.

Nope! Not expendable. Economical and Tough!

Maybe so, but I've earned it and can back it up. I'm not one of the people here making claims and then not posting pictures or references. So far I haven't seen anything from the SPAD camp except unsubstantiated and obviously exaggerated claims. I've asked to see some of these advanced engineering, aerodynmic marvels, but nothing has been produced.

Planes built to crash do crash.

I did some looking around in the SPAD forum and didn't see anything particularly compelling to make me want to run right out and spend $20 on a couple sheets of plastic and some gutter pipe.

Here's what I don't get and maybe you can explain it...

SPAD people keep telling balsa people that they're limited and rigid in their thinking because they don't see the obvious superiority of SPADS. As far as I can see, SPADs can make a trainer and a sport plane and that's about it. Seems really limited to me.

Balsa planes (in flight where they belong) can do anything a SPAD can do and far more. Not to mention the VARIETY (speaking of limitations) of planes that can be built.

Where is the SPAD....

FAI Pattern Ship?
Endurance Sailplane?
Precision Scale Masterpiece?
Unlimited Pylon Racer
etc.
etc.
etc.

If you like SPADs that's fine. Nobody has to like your plane but you. But the "superior" part is laughable. You guys sure seem to have some kind of inferiority complex as evidenced by the constant attacks on balsa. On the other hand, we have nothing to prove and are content with what we do with having the same need to constantly attack SPADs. We simply don't care what you fly.

I saw the word "advances" in a post. Advances include composite materials, turbine engines, etc. Plastic, is not an advance... it's just an alternate building material with no aerodynamic, structural or weight advantages. It's good for guys who want to get into the air fast for whatever reason (lack of time, building skill, whatever...) or guys who crash a lot and think of their planes as expendable. That's all good and I have no problem with it. Why do you?

for a look at one of the "SPAD marvels"... I'd have to get my stupid digital camera to work

You can come up with a light SPAD airplane.... you just have to know how. (and its not hard)

The US AirCores trainer is a mass of errors in use of Coroplast. At least 40% of the airframe weight can be deleted.

The SPAD Debonair is one of the worst examples of overweight in the SPAD plans list at www.spadtothebone.com The PVC tube fuselage is very heavy. (especially if you use the US tube instead of the Canadian which has appx 1/2 the wall thickness) The double-spar is totally un-necessary. The 4MM wing skins are 40% dead useless weight. (you do need more than just a single yardstick spar if doing a 2 mm wingskin at that span...)

2 MM coroplast is better for wing skins than 4 MM for .40 size and smaller. A bent fusealage from 4 mm Coro will stand up to a .46 with minimal reinforcement at the front end. (mainly to keep the screws holding the firewall in from pulling through the coro)

******

Now go look through the plans for the CoroStang. That plane with VERY minor mods becomes a nice lightweight high speed (but able to slow down nicely) stand-off scale Mustang. It will easilly fly with a .15, and can get going very fast on that little power. With a .25... its greased lightning in the air. 2 mm wing skins... 4 mm coro formed fuselage... no PVC. (and use the yardstick spar... its much lighter than the aluminum and is more than adequate)

*****

I am NOT selling pre-cut Corostang kits with my mods any more... However I did modify a few, and found you could streamline the nose with ease... and taper the spar... and make the wing fully symetrical. Add the rudder channel and landing gear. With a .25.. that plane will do the full Intermediate Pattern. Knife-edge forever. (I have a lot of trouble with Knife-edge... that plane made it EASY!) Unlimited vertical. Flys like its on rails.

I modified one for speed... The tailplanes will flutter off if not modified with 1/2 dowel leading edges. Wish I had a radar gun... I think it was doing about 115.

http://home.hot.rr.com/fhh/corostangkits.html

And where is it that you asked for this information, and what were you asking to see? I'm quite sure I could dredge up a few websites for you.

http://hometown.aol.com/_ht_a/radioc...a/my-stick.jpg

It's a bad pic, but thats my Stick, all Coro.

http://hometown.aol.com/_ht_a/radioc...trnr-spa3d.jpg

My wifes trainer (Coro) and my 3d flyer next to it.

http://www.checkerboardair.com/cp1b.jpg
This is their version o the racer

Here's mine - I admit it needs a little work in that pic, but I'm happy with it, which is all that matters.
http://hometown.aol.com/_ht_a/radioc.../cyclone-s.jpg

I love to build also, but I wouldn't bash anyone who loves to build, that's their affliction-consider the source.

The fact is SPADS / BALSA are no better than another. And in fact, I haven't read that very much, except coming back in the form of a retort or a toungue in cheek remark. SPADS are much more forgiving however in most cases in the unlikely event of a crash-which, if you fly enough, IS going to happen.

To the originator of the thread, you'll have to choose. A balsa plane is your most likely recourse, since they're so widely available and supported. If you feel like being a SPADoholic, you're always welcome to join us-so is anyone else..

I forgot to add, FHHUBER has done a great job on the CoroStangs for anyone interested, vast improvements over the original and he went to extensive testing to get where he is with it.

[quote]ORIGINAL: CafeenMan
Planes built to crash do crash.[/crash]

Gotta agree with you. If a plane is built poorly, it's bound to crash - which I assume you are referring to when you mention !QUOT!planes built to crash.!QUOT! From what I've seen all types of planes, built with all types of materials, are possibles for crashing. It doesn't matter whether they are balsa, Spad, or something else.

Since this is a beginners forum I think it would seem out of place to give them the impression that crashing is rare. It happens a lot with R/C aircraft. You mentioned you learned without crashing your trainer. That's great! But, many don't. The balsa beauty they spent many hours and bucks on gets wiped out after just few flights. And then there they are ... starting all over building a new one. Or waiting weeks for the replacement ARF wing to arrive. It doesn't have to be that way.

Well, I think there are limited and rigid people in both camps. And I also think arguing the issue of which is superior is a terrible waste of time. Balsa and Spad each fulfill the same basic function (flying) but each does so in a different manner with different strong points - suiting different individuals with differing values, desires, and resources. But, alas, human nature, being what it is, gets some people thinking everyone should live by their values and desires (and they belittle those that don't have their resources). They seem to make it their life mission to convince everyone else their way is the only way - or the superior way. And your scum or a loser or possibly don't have the proper aptitude (read: loser) if you don't see things their way - or measure up to their image.

You're using an impossible premise - in flight where they belong. Airplanes must always takeoff and land. And as we all know, they don't always function perfectly - so they sometimes land with partial control (maybe a hard landing) or no control (crash). This effectively nullifies your conclusion that balsa can do anything a Spad can do. It can't. Crashing, or at least a hard landing, is a reality - sooner or later. When training, probably sooner. Balsa cannot hold up like a Spad during a crash or hard landing. Spads make pretty tough combat planes, from what I've heard. Naturally armored. LOL

I haven't a clue. I'm still a bit new to Spad. As far as I know no one has tried to build them yet. Folks are probably too busy having fun in other manners.

If you don't have the inferiority complex or care what we fly, why do you consistently attack Spads and most anyone who it seems has anything to do with them?

Spadders have taken a lot of crap from the balsa guys. Much of it was out of line. You, some of the other balsa flyers, and sadly even sometimes the mods, often go out of the way to discredit and dump on Spads and Spadders. Then you conveniently turn around and blame them for their constant attacks of Balsa as the root cause of it all. This has made some of them a bit testy and touchy. Your behavior in this thread proves my point.

Actually, the application of an existing material for a new purpose is considered an advance. It's one of the primaries. One that science and business spend millions and millions for every year. And yes, Spads have structure advantages. And then there is the building methods, which are advances in knowledge. There are others that you will not acknowledge also.

I don't have a problem with it. Yet, you obviously do - as I've seen you use this question many times before. You also have all these wonderful preconceived bad opinions about Spads and the people who build them - that you dump all over the place. Yet it appears you've never seen, built, or flown one. Well, I've at least built both balsa and Spads. Apparently you haven't. So I don't care how may balsa planes you've built. Your classification to talk about Spads is UNQUALIFIED. Do everybody around here a favor and shut up on the subject. You've become a bore.

Read through my posts and find what I've actually said. The attacks have come soley from the SPAD people. All I've been saying all along is I DO NOT CARE WHAT YOU FLY!!!!!!!!! Geez... you people are incredibly thick and sensitive.

Think what you like. Pretend I've said things I haven't said and then attack those non-existent comments. I really don't care.

I decided to revisit this thread, and the original question. This is my personal experience. Spad started simply as combat planes...cheap, have fun, smack em up, no emotional debt factor. I never had any desire or intentions to mess with designing a trainer. Until I met Sassy. When I met Sassy, she owned a Dura-Plane that was so full of epoxy it was a flying brick and she had no luck trying to learn on it. She had the Dura-Plane because she spent a lot of time and money on a Great Planes Trainer and it was destryoed in a training crash. Not earning her wings with the Dura-Plane, she put a lot of time and money into an LT-40. This was also destroyed in a training crash. She was nervous, and scared to death of wrecking any more planes. I told her I would see what we could do. We spent a Saturday enlarging one of the original Spad designs (the Dominator) Into a larger airplane with lower wing loading. We chose the heavier American pipe for survivability. We used all 4mm coro because it's everywhere, cheap, and tough. We used two spars for cartwheel survivability. The engine mount, landing gear, radio and hardware all came out of her Dura-Plane. Debonair #1 was finished that afternoon with about $10 worth of materials plus what we used off the Dura-Plane. The next day we went to the field. The winds were blowing about 20mph. We took the plane up and it performed flawlessly. After triming it out, Sassy was given the Tx and flew out the rest of the flight with no problems. We fueled it up, and Sassy took of, flew the entire flight, and landed. She soloed. One of her first comments after landing was that the nerves and fear of crashing were gone, because the time, cost and effort that went into the airplane were so low. Since she was involved in every step of the building process the day before, she also commented that it was no big deal if she splattered it, because she would just build another one. She said that for her, removing the fear factor made ALL the difference in the world. That trainer is still flying today. Although Sassy has gone on to fly other airplanes, including combat competition, the Original Debonair is still one of her favorite airplanes.

[quote]ORIGINAL: Zombie
Since this is a beginners forum I think it would seem out of place to give them the impression that crashing is rare. It happens a lot with R/C aircraft. You mentioned you learned without crashing your trainer. That's great! But, many don't. The balsa beauty they spent many hours and bucks on gets wiped out after just few flights. And then there they are ... starting all over building a new one. Or waiting weeks for the replacement ARF wing to arrive. It doesn't have to be that way.
[quote]
More people learn to fly their trainer than don't. So this one doesn't fly.


Whatever...

Here I agree with you.

[quote]
If you don't have the inferiority complex or care what we fly, why do you consistently attack Spads and most anyone who it seems has anything to do with them?
[quote]
This is why I keep responding to this nonsense.

Show me...

* Where I attacked SPADs
* Where I said anyone is a loser
* Where I said Balsa planes fly better than SPADs

There's plenty coming from the other direction pointed at me in response to fictitious attacks and comments I never made. Why? Over-sensitivity obviously.

Oh waaa.... My behavior in this thread? Care to show me? I'm a bore and unqualified with my comments about SPADs? I haven't said anything about SPADs. Again, a charge based on comments I never made. Maybe you need to stop crying so much, read what I actually wrote instead of making things up and you wouldn't feel so defensive.

ROFL... by who?!?! Seriously dude. It's not an advance. Don't kid yourself.

He protests too much.

Anyway, I'm taking your advice and leaving this thread. Tired of responding to all the crying about how picked on you are. Again, I implore you to read what I actually wrote. That is unless this is another of your posts where you made comments that appeared to be directly to me but were actually to other people.

Tattoo, what was the problem with Sassies instructor? Why was she crashing trainer planes so much? Just curious. Were they handing the radio back and forth or using a buddy box?

I think I have had one student loose a plane before solo, and that was due to radio failure. I know there are lots of reasons for crashes, but just wondering how someone can call themself an instructor if they are letting students crash when learning. Its not a perfect world, but I was just wondering how they crashed 2 trainers bad enough that they couldn't be fixed when on the box?

Not asking to poke fun or start wars, just wondering what they did?

Thanks.

What Tattoo just posted I think is a perfect example where the low cost, low personal investment and durable plane can greatly help some new pilots. From the post, it is my impression that Sassy had a bad experience with her first plane(s). She became overwhelmed with the fear of crashing again that she couldn't concentrate on learning to fly. I'd say this is not the norm, but I can understand how some would react this way. From what I gather, what the SPAD did is allow Sassy to concentrate on flying as opposed to worrying about crashing. In her case, this is what was needed to make RC enjoyable for her. I still hold to my durable planes make some pilots dangerous, but I don't believe that in this case it made her dangerous as the fear she had of crashing was not realistic, i.e. it was unfounded.

Cheers

LESS FILLING!!

TASTES GREAT!!

[8D]

Norm or not, it's more common than you think. How many of us can afford to lose a GP PT40 and a LT40 in the course of learning to solo? I'm not saying it makes everybody shake in their boots, but it sure as heck takes the fun out of learning and flying. My story is very similar to Sassy's. I can't say I was all that scared of crashing the plane, because it was crashing into people that always made me nervous. But what really was taking the fun out of learning was the good chance that I'd be spending an hour or two repairing my plane after a flying session, with the ever-present possibility that I wouldn't be able to fix it and would have to spend another 40 to 80 hours building another one (there weren't too many affordable ARF's when I started).

Finally, I came in a little too low for a landing. Not even a crash, really, just a hard landing. When I got to the plane, I found that the tail feathers were completely broken off. That was it. I just said, I have had it. I know everybody on rec.models.rc.air is constantly trashing durable planes, but I'm getting one. I bought the U.S. Aircore, and never had so much fun flying in my life. By the time I outgrew it, I just couldn't bear going back to a wood plane, since I still had a lot to learn, and lazy ovals weren't really my style. About that time, Tattoo published beautiful, incredibly detailed plans for the DPS. For about $50 I built 4 of them in a space of a week, and I'm still flying them. The winter before last, I built a very pretty OMP 540 Profile, but I still have only flown it a couple of times to trim it out. It just seems too beautiful to have it destroyed with some dumb thumb mistake.

Huh? I don't understand what you're saying. Her fear (and mine) was totally realistic and founded in fact. She destroyed two expensive planes, I would guess making very common mistakes that everybody makes.

Absolutely nothing. Sassy could fly fine. She could even fly a hand launched combat plane and land it...on a buddy chord, or even without a buddy chord with the support of someone standing next to her. But once on her own, with all the cards on the table, nerves took over. Understandable nerves...with the risk of a lot of work and money one mistake away from disaster, with no one to flip a switch or grab the Tx. Sassy also had a lot of time in on Real Flight, and could fly it fine also. It boils down to once the fear was removed, she never looked back and has been having fun ever since.

Is she confident enough to fly balsa now?

The answer to that is I don't know. We have a full life with commitments, activities, other hobbies, and an average income. To be totally honest, R/C is not that important in our lives...and we don't spend a lot of time or money on it. It is there to enjoy when we get some free time on the weekend. I also don't know if I will ever find out the answer to that question, because what we have created with Spads, came from necessity, if we wanted to continue with this hobby. If I wouldn't have created the option of Spads for myself, I would no longer be involved in this hobby. BTW, I met Sassy because she had gotten my e-mail address from the Spad site...with the same basic outlook on the hobby. She now owns the site, and pays the bill, so without her, it wouldn't even exist anymore.

but all said and done isnt it funny to see three threads now commited to spad/balsa bashing. but the real question to me is what about foam or fiberglass or other composites they must be unarguably the best out there cause no one picks on foam, well unless you ask about my foam P39 experience lol

Foam and glass is good, but many don't understand it or want to learn it. Its all good, some just like one better than the other. A good mix never hurt anyone.

I think you've touched on what I believe is the root of the negitivity. It isn't the material. It's the effort in vs. fun out. With the coro and pipe it's already fuel proof, doesn't require special tools, doesn't require finishing and it's cheap and inherantly tough. Foam and fiberglass don't elicit such a response because it takes special tools, expertise, expense, time, finishing and reinforcing. One of the best "unfair" examples is Kraut's Ultraspadstick built from $20 worth of plastic in about 10 hours or so, with no finishing/covering/fuelproofing etc needed. From 20 ft away or on the Tx end you can't tell it from it's Balsa brother. This doesn't set well with some people. Designing/scratch building today, flying tomorrow for less than the cost of a Taco Tico meal deal just doesn't fit into the hobby's "ideals" yet. Heaven forbid it equals or out performs a "due payer"...but the more people doing it, and the more great ideas and designs people come up with, it's all changing. This being the beginner's forum, a better place to carry on a materials discussion would be the Spad topic here at RCU.

I absolutely agree. This is one of my pet peeves, so allow me to be a bit long-winded... Puritan beliefs are still very deeply embedded in American culture. "Gain" is only supposed to be achieved with great "pain". They may not come right out and say it, but most of the anti-spad crowd believe that if Spads really fly as well as we say they do, then Spadders are "cheaters" because we are not working for our pleasure. This drives them nuts.

There are only two ways for them to get this to conform to their view of a just world. The first is to assert that Spads don't fly very well. If they can believe this strongly enough, then we are good people again, because we're not getting as much fun out of flying as they do.

On the other hand, if Spads do fly well, then the only possible way to live with this injustice is to assert that Spadders are morally inferior people. This faction of the anti spad group feel that spadders are lazy, demand "instant gratification", are careless flyers, and are not safety conscious. Another avenue of attack is to say that Spadders just don't have what it takes to build a beautiful aircraft. The latest approach in this desire for a just world is to assert that Spadders are wimps, and are too frightened to fly "real airplanes". As long as the character and skills of Spadders can be degraded, the Puritan world view is safe.

Since Spadding threatens the moral fiber and character of the model flying public, anti-spadders are particularly vocal on the "Beginners" forum, and they are particularly threatened by Spad trainers.

So beginners: If you feel that something of deep value can only be gained by many hours of tedious labor, then by all means, building and flying balsa is for you. If you make it to solo, you will have a great sense of achievement, and can rightly look upon it as a character-building experience. However, if you feel that human ingenuity and clever engineering can result in a better world, one in which technology rewards us all with more leisure time to have fun, you'll want to go Spad right from the start. You can build your character in your free time.

My 2c...

In South Africa RC modelling kit is almost 3 times more expensive than in USA (comparatively to earning power).

1) I started out wanting to fly not build.
2) I got a balsa ARF and it taught me the basic building and got me in the sky.
3) After I crashed it, I bought another 2nd balsa trainer to continue my training in the same week, and got to fly pretty good.
4) Then I build a Balsa fun fly from scratch; to see what is was like, man did it take me some time and frustration.
5) I babied the scratch build plane, until it crashed, and was very de-motivated, almost ready to leave the hobby.
6) I stumbled on www.spadtothebone.com, Lucky me I had RC kit already to fit into a SPAD plane
7) My first SPAD was not a good flyer but I was impressed on how quickly and cheaply the plane came together (SPAD has a learning curve though!)
8) My second, third SPAD got better and better.
9) Now I love how quickly I can change designs try my own things without breaking the bank. I have grown and now I like to build and try new things.

My Bottom line is: I have grown into a true Aero Modeller, not just an Flyer, and SPAD being cheap and easy allows that for me.